FWC examines whether aggressive workplace confrontation led to dismissal
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case involving a business development manager who was terminated following a heated workplace confrontation with new business ownership. The case centred on whether the worker was dismissed or had resigned during the altercation.
The worker argued that she was unfairly dismissed after challenging unrealistic business targets set by new management and being subjected to aggressive and threatening behaviour during a workplace meeting. She maintained that she never resigned despite being told to hand in her resignation by a specific date.
The employer disputed these claims through limited engagement, with the new business owner arguing that the worker had quit during their confrontation. However, the employer failed to participate in the proceedings, not filing any response documents or attending hearings.
Workplace confrontation escalates
The worker started employment as a senior sales executive in October 2023 and was promoted to business development manager in June 2024, earning approximately $130,000 per annum. She maintained that she performed her employment duties to an exemplary standard throughout her tenure with the catering business.
During meetings on 4 November 2024, the worker was advised by the new business owner that he would soon "own" the business, had taken on "all of the debt," and was "taking over control" with existing directors no longer involved. On 25 November 2024, the worker attended a meeting where he sought information about debts and the client list.
When the worker asked questions about the business structure and his plans, she said he became "agitated" and "began swearing at me" and "stated that wasn't my business" and "simply stated that his plan was 'sales.'" The worker asked what his expectations were, leading to a significant escalation in the confrontation.
Employer's response to workplace confrontation
According to the worker's account: "He then wrote '1.25' on a page, to represent the current business turnover, he then drew up a line up the page and wrote '2M'. [He] stated '$2 mil, that's all I fucking want from you.' I asked [him] to clarify that what he wanted me to do was take the company turnover from 1.25 to 2 million without any further support or resource. [He] stated 'yes.'"
The worker made a comment that the direction was "idiocy," which she clarified referred to the business strategy, not him personally. The situation escalated dramatically: "[He] then picked up a stack of papers and slammed them on the desk. [He] approached me and stated 'you will be handing in your resignation on the 6th of December'. I did not respond to this. [He] was irate and was yelling and swearing at me and I felt incredibly unsafe due to [his] aggressive behaviour and left the meeting."
As she was leaving, he told her in an aggressive tone to "leave your codes and keys as well," indicating he did not want her to return to the office. Later that day, a colleague informed her that the new business owner had advised the workforce that no one was to let her back into the office and specifically that she was "never to enter these doors again."
Investigation into workplace dismissal dispute
The worker continued to perform her role from home for the following week, focusing on sales as directed. The new business owner did not respond to her work-related emails. On 2 December 2024, he telephoned her stating: "[He] stated that I no longer worked for him and directed me to stop speaking with [company] staff... [He] stated we parted ways last Monday (25 November 2024)... [He] stated it was on the ground that he didn't want me working for the company anymore."
The worker asked him to put the termination in writing. He claimed she had said "I quit" during the 25 November meeting, which she denied, stating that he "had demanded my resignation which was illegal." Following this call, he sent a text message confirming: "as per our discussions as per last Monday, you don't work for the company anymore And after this Wednesday pay cycles you will not be receiving any more pay from us."
The worker responded with a detailed email challenging the termination: "I was not terminated last Monday as this requires mutual agreement by both parties in which I never consented to be terminated. You cannot terminate my employment purely on the basis that 'you don't want me working for you anymore'." On 3 December 2024, her access to company systems was removed. The employer failed to engage with the FWC proceedings.
Framework for workplace dismissal disputes
The FWC found the worker's evidence to be "detailed, credible and convincing" and concluded she was dismissed on 25 November 2024. The decision stated: "The principal contributing factor leading to the employment termination was [the new business owner's] instruction to [the worker], as she was departing the office after [he] had demanded her resignation, to leave her 'codes and keys as well,' demonstrating that [the worker] was not to return to the office to perform her duties."
The FWC was satisfied that the worker "did not state, 'I quit' at the 25 November 2024 meeting, or otherwise tender her resignation." The decision noted that her personal circumstances weighed against a conclusion that she resigned prior to the Christmas period, and the documentary evidence provided "a relatively contemporaneous written record of [the worker's] emphatic denial that she resigned."
In determining the dismissal was unfair, the FWC found: "there was no valid reason for the dismissal... [The worker] was not notified of a valid reason for dismissal... She was not given an opportunity to respond to the reasons for dismissal... [The worker] was not warned about poor performance."
FWC's ruling on worker's dismissal
The FWC concluded: "the dismissal was harsh due to the economic and personal consequences to [the worker], unjust due to the absence of any procedural fairness, and unreasonable because there was no valid reason to support a dismissal." The dismissal was therefore found to be unfair under the Fair Work Act.
The FWC awarded the worker $15,000 gross compensation plus 11.5% superannuation ($1,725), representing four weeks' pay plus two weeks' notice pay. The decision noted this amount excluded any component for shock, humiliation or distress, and did not address outstanding contractual entitlements that may be owed separately.
The case highlights the importance of following proper dismissal procedures and the risks of aggressive workplace behaviour. The employer's failure to participate in the proceedings meant the worker's account remained largely uncontested, contributing to the successful unfair dismissal claim.
